Jeremy Dakota Murrieta v. State, 578 S.W.3d 552

Jeremy Dakota Murrieta was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of his wife’s six‑year‑old daughter and sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment.
At punishment, the trial court instructed the jury that parole eligibility could be accelerated by good‑conduct time (actual time + good time = one‑half of sentence).
Aggravated sexual assault of a child is an offense listed in Art. 42A.054(a), which requires the parole instruction that parole eligibility is determined without considering good‑conduct time.
Murrieta argued on appeal that the trial court submitted the wrong statutory parole instruction (invoking Art. 37.07 § 4(a) rather than the applicable subsection).
The court of appeals found the instruction to be erroneous but evaluated harm under the egregious‑harm standard (Murrieta did not object at trial).
Considering the curative language in the charge, strong punishment evidence, lack of juror questions or misconduct, and counsel’s arguments, the court held the error did not cause egregious harm and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court submitted the correct parole instruction at punishment	Murrieta: trial court gave incorrect instruction that good‑conduct time shortens parole eligibility; should have instructed no consideration of good conduct for this offense	State: erroneous language present but cured by other charge language and record factors; jury presumed to follow instructions	Court: Trial court erred in using wrong parole language but error was harmless (no egregious harm)
Whether non‑objected‑to jury‑charge error requires reversal	Murrieta: error affected parole eligibility understanding and thus sentencing	State: because no objection, reversal required only if egregious harm shown; record does not show egregious harm	Court: Applied Almanza/Abdnor framework; no egregious harm found

Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (two‑step jury‑charge error review)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (egregious‑harm standard when no timely objection)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (clarifying egregious‑harm review)
Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (curative instruction plus other factors can cure erroneous parole instruction)
Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (parole instruction cases informing harm analysis)
Villarreal v. State, 205 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (court required to give parole instruction once jury asks about parole; omission can cause harm)
Stewart v. State, 293 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (erroneous parole language did not produce egregious harm under similar facts)
Hill v. State, 30 S.W.3d 505 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (earlier decision finding egregious harm from erroneous parole language; later disavowed)